Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Migrant]

I really enjoy the realism of DF and I am therefore pretty happy with the wear mechanic. However it seems rather incomplete because while armor and weapons are subject to wear, shields are not. I get that shields are a special case because they aren't the subject of the attack as they are used to block as a reaction to the attack. However I don't think it would be that difficult to simulate an attack on the shield every time an attack is blocked.


As far as I could tell all previous discussions on this topic predate the introduction of the wear mechanic to this game (.43.04). Therefore a new thread seemed in order.

[NW_Kohaku]

In Mount and Blade, armor has no wear, but shields do, which makes it kind of odd. 

There's also currently little reason not to take a wooden shield - you can even block dragonfire with one!  (Although the insane heat of dragonfire is so intense, it would even melt steel and sear itself into your arm just trying to block it...)

The shield user skill could also affect the amount of damage that the shield actually takes, since a more skilled user can take blows at more oblique angles.

[MrLurkety]

I really enjoy the realism of DF and I am therefore pretty happy with the wear mechanic. However it seems rather incomplete because while armor and weapons are subject to wear, shields are not. I get that shields are a special case because they aren't the subject of the attack as they are used to block as a reaction to the attack. However I don't think it would be that difficult to simulate an attack on the shield every time an attack is blocked.


As far as I could tell all previous discussions on this topic predate the introduction of the wear mechanic to this game (.43.04). Therefore a new thread seemed in order.

Actually; many of my adventurers have died due to broken shields.

[NAV]

Historically, most blades were blocked with the edge of a shield instead of the face. So a wooden shield with a steel rim lasts almost as long as a steel shield. I don't think DF wooden shields have metal rims yet though, so they should get chewed up quickly.

[Migrant]

Actually; many of my adventurers have died due to broken shields.

This is quite the thread necro, but how? To my knowledge shields only get worn when you attack with them which is not a very smart thing to do in most cases. Regardless of this, squads use their shields offensively and I could imagine soldiers in fort mode dying because their shields broke, but this does not affect adventurers as players are too smart to break their shields on purpose.

[SixOfSpades]

The shield user skill could also affect the amount of damage that the shield actually takes, since a more skilled user can take blows at more oblique angles.

Yes, but that's somewhat iffy. Deflecting attacks away from you is always good, but that's what armor is for--most pieces of plate armor have convex curves, so blows will slide right off. Shields, in contrast, were frequently given concave fronts, so that attacks hitting the shield would tend to STAY on the shield, and not glance away & hit something more vulnerable. But yes, a more experienced shield user would know how to deflect safely.

Historically, most blades were blocked with the edge of a shield instead of the face.

If by "blades" you mean swords, that's because most swords aren't heavy enough to go through a shield--so their users weren't trying to, they were trying to stab/cut next to the shield, at vital targets that weren't quite covered. But, if "blades" is expanded to include axes, then that's quite wrong: Axes were used to break wooden shields (and in some cases, the arms holding them) all the time. Unless the shield was made of 2-ply wood with the grains running at right angles to each other, a good axeman could break a shield in 1 blow.

To my knowledge shields only get worn when you attack with them which is not a very smart thing to do in most cases. Regardless of this, squads use their shields offensively and I could imagine soldiers in fort mode dying because their shields broke, but this does not affect adventurers as players are too smart to break their shields on purpose.

1. Shields take damage all the time, more often than all other pieces of armor. Any decent warrior knows it's a lot faster & cheaper to replace a shield than, say, a breastplate, and so would block with his shield as much as possible.
2. Attacking with your shield IS surprisingly often a very good thing to do. Shieldbash, pin your opponent's weapon arm against a wall, get it in his face & obscure his vision, jab the upper edge into his throat/jaw, etc.

[GoblinCookie]

Yes, but that's somewhat iffy. Deflecting attacks away from you is always good, but that's what armor is for--most pieces of plate armor have convex curves, so blows will slide right off. Shields, in contrast, were frequently given concave fronts, so that attacks hitting the shield would tend to STAY on the shield, and not glance away & hit something more vulnerable. But yes, a more experienced shield user would know how to deflect safely.

No, armour; all armour is there to reduce damage, it is never a good idea to rely on armour to deflect blows away from you since all armour is generally unable to keep damage from being done to the person below the armour when hit by any reasonably heavy weapon at least reasonably hard.  Injury is unpredictable since you do not know exactly what is getting hit and how important it is. 

Shields are basically designed to be destroyed and replaced, typically they are made of a mixture of metal and wood (or even cloth), the idea is that the metal makes the wood stronger so it does simply shatter but the wood still gets cut apart during the course of the battle.  At the end of the battle you take what is left of the shield, remove the wood, beat the metal frame back into shape if necessary and replace the wood with new wood. 

Historically, most blades were blocked with the edge of a shield instead of the face. So a wooden shield with a steel rim lasts almost as long as a steel shield. I don't think DF wooden shields have metal rims yet though, so they should get chewed up quickly.

Wooden shields should probably be made of wood and nothing else.  Metals shields should be made of wood+metal, not of pure metal as they are at the moment, nobody ever used pure metal shields in history because they would be both heavy and expensive. 

[FantasticDorf]

A 'crude' wooden shield is more often than not there to simply absorb and possibly lodge sharp weapons in regards to its (which may change when you get more into the territory of denser woods like glumprong & bloodthorn) materials wheras slightly blunt animal claws & blunt weapons with less of a concentrated contact area (so you don't snap the wood shield in the middle) try to do their best to deflect.

If you hit it full strength with your axe with superior sharpness, its either going to deal a large amount of damage to the shield or get stuck, some more interaction with sharp objects versus a material as to actually breaking it into bits, i mean some of this can be seen already when adamantine interacts to slice metals like iron, but it doesn't actively do anything than rapidly decrease wear in the current game.

Such might require giving armor component properties like a hilt/blade for weapons if you parry & your sword been under extremeties (frozen/hot) or damage snaps or individual fingers in a glove for instance & junk items made out of destroyed armor.

[Grand Sage]

nobody ever used pure metal shields in history because they would be both heavy and expensive.

actually, I would tend to disagree. remember that DF shields are "worn" on the arm, which makes them much more likely to resemble Crusader type shields than round shields. And those were both smaller and, to my knowledge, full-metal.

[Bumber]

actually, I would tend to disagree. remember that DF shields are "worn" on the arm...

No, they're held in the hand. Shield-stacking exploit wouldn't work otherwise.

[Grand Sage]

actually, I would tend to disagree. remember that DF shields are "worn" on the arm...

No, they're held in the hand. Shield-stacking exploit wouldn't work otherwise.

Your right of course, and I think thats why I put worn in quotes, though I am not sure what I was thinking. can it be that this was changed recently? I found this on the wiki (on the armor page):

Shields are a special piece of armor that can be worn on one arm (and cannot be worn with two-handed weapons) and can be used to block attacks better than equivalent armor can (a difference amounting to deflection instead of broken bones), greatly increasing dwarven survivability.

[Migrant]

To my knowledge shields only get worn when you attack with them which is not a very smart thing to do in most cases. Regardless of this, squads use their shields offensively and I could imagine soldiers in fort mode dying because their shields broke, but this does not affect adventurers as players are too smart to break their shields on purpose.

1. Shields take damage all the time, more often than all other pieces of armor. Any decent warrior knows it's a lot faster & cheaper to replace a shield than, say, a breastplate, and so would block with his shield as much as possible.
2. Attacking with your shield IS surprisingly often a very good thing to do. Shieldbash, pin your opponent's weapon arm against a wall, get it in his face & obscure his vision, jab the upper edge into his throat/jaw, etc.

I thought it was obvious from the context but I was referring to things work in the game, not how they should work.

Additionally I agree that there should be a repair mechanic, but that seems a bit out of the scope of this thread.

[Sarmatian123]

Additionally I agree that there should be a repair mechanic, but that seems a bit out of the scope of this thread.

Joker. Repair mechanics to broken items mechanics. Why not ask Toady for cleaning mechanics to the filth spreading mechanics as well, when on it? You will get a magic expansion instead. That's what is in the development pipe. Not a rework of 10 years of all military issues, all bugs and all antiquated uniform features. Even military screen, as the only screen in DF, won't even resize with window resize. This is how bad military is supported in DF. The only thing I hope, which will get fixed still in this bug fixing releases is... having all military Dwarves returned from mission and/or dead on mission. Not suspended in eternal "travel". What a horrible bug. Better stay now away from sending missions. Though I love the new map feature in the civilizations menu. I just love it. I can't believe we didn't have it earlier.